Nancy Duxbury Cultural in Sustainable doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 165

Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

Nancy Duxbury Centre for Social Studies – University of Coimbra

ABSTRACT: The paper proposes a three-part system of cultural governance for sustainable cities: culturally sensitive sustainability governance processes and structures, a cultural lens on all public policies/decisions and a sustaina- bility approach to /planning and governance.

Keywords: urban cultural policy, urban , cultural sus- tainability, cultural governance.

—

RESUM: Aquest article proposa un sistema tripartit de governança cultural per a ciutats sostenibles: processos i estructures de governança de la soste- nibilitat amb sensibilitat cultural, una òptica cultural en totes les polítiques o decisions públiques i un enfocament sostenible de la política o planificació cultural i de la governança.

Paraules clau: política cultural urbana, desenvolupament urbà sostenible, sostenibilitat cultural, governance cultural.

—

RESUMEN: Este artículo propone un sistema tripartito de gobernanza cultural para ciudades sostenibles: procesos y estructuras de gobernanza de la soste- nibilidad con sensibilidad cultural, una óptica cultural en todas las políticas o decisiones públicas y un enfoque sostenible de la política/planificación cultu- ral y de la gobernanza.

Palabras clave: política urbana cultural, desarrollo urbano sostenible, soste- nibilidad cultural, gobernanza cultural. Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

166 ÀGORA

Sustainability means more than the protection of the environ- ment; it also requires a long-term vision for catalyzing positive change leading to sustainable social and cultural contexts in rela- tion to the built environment. […] This vision needs to reflect the distinctive nature and characteristics and identities of each .

Choi and Ahn (2013: 51)

n the context of rapid global urbanization, we face a pressing need to trans- Iform urban environments into milieu fostering more holistically sustainable living patterns that address the interrelated environmental, social, economic and cultural issues and dynamics of living together on a finite planet. While there is no consensus on a singular definition of sustainability or sustainable de- velopment, in general the definition of sustainable development originally put forward by the Brundtland Commission (1987), while heavily critiqued, contin- ues to guide thinking about urban sustainable development – a sustainable city should meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The urgent pressure to mitigate climate

co change and 2 emissions and address energy needs in the context of ‘peak oil’ have added an overlay to this vision resulting in prioritization of attention to en- ergy development/use, greenhouse gas reduction and climate change adaptation and mitigation. But social and cultural dynamics emerging from diversifying urban populations, widening social divides and wealth inequities, economic cri- ses and clashes between neoliberal development policies and urban citizens in cities globally point to the need to consider ‘urban sustainability’ with a broader lens. So while environmental urgencies must remain core in the face of our cur- rent climatic crisis, it is evident that urban sustainability must be viewed with a multi-dimensional lens that can also incorporate and address these interrelated issues of human cohabitation, change and development. As many scholars have pointed out, mainstream views of sustainabili- ty do not adequately incorporate “many important factors … includ[ing] the spiritual and cultural dimensions of man and knowledge” (Shaharir, 2012: 91). However, a new view of sustainability that includes is emerging through transdisciplinary research and reflection (e.g., Soini & Birkeland, forthcoming) and a wide range of experimental policy initiatives and pro- Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 167

jects rooted in public participation (Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2011). It has been informed by ’s statements on the contributions of cultural diversity to sustainable development, the recovery of historical and culture-specific de- velopment approaches and worldviews, and community development trends (Duxbury, Cullen & Pascual, 2012). A call for a ‘cultural lens’ and the rise of a ‘four-pillar’ model of sustainability with four interconnected dimensions – environmental responsibility, economic health, social equity and cultural vitality (Hawkes, 2001) – can be found in writings from many countries. Yet many conceptual and operational challenges remain (see, e.g., Duxbury, Cul- len & Pascual, 2012). To advance the inclusion of culture into ‘sustainable city’ public policies and practices, that is, into the frameworks through which urban environ- ments and living conditions are collectively envisioned and constructed, artistic and cultural practices must be recognized as integral to sustainable development and supported in more regularized ways. The systematic in- clusion of culture within urban sustainability frameworks must build on both conceptual and practice-based experimental foundations and put for- ward principles and operational strategies for cultural governance systems that are sympathetic and coherent within evolving thinking about designs and strategies for more sustainable cities and communities. In a modest way, this article aims to address this challenge by beginning to sketch the contours of what systems of cultural governance might look like within a sustainable city context.

Context: Transitioning toward more Sustainable Cities

Acknowledging that cities are social spaces constituted through the co- existence of multiple publics, and histories (Sandercock, 2003), transforming our cities is rooted in transforming collective perceptions and behaviours. While grossly oversimplifying the matter, this process involves two interlinked dimensions: (a) altering individual and collective ways of thinking and acting, and (b) developing the appropriate organizational/gov- ernance frameworks, strategies and physical infrastructure to induce and sup- port such transformations. In both areas, culture can play important roles. Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

168 ÀGORA

Altering Ways of Thinking and Acting

As a process of change, sustainable development is about creating a learning environment in which, as Choi and Ahn (2013) view it, “all partic- ipants strive to improve the situation that exists for the needs of today and tomorrow, acknowledging aspirations as well as needs and therefore engag- ing the drive for change and improvement within society” (p. 51). From a public education perspective, growing attention is being placed on finding communicative approaches and narrative frames to develop new ways of thinking and convince the public of the need to make behavioural chang- es (issc, 2013). Girard (2011) characterizes citizens’ capacity to develop and embrace renewed ways of thinking and being, while linking to cultural memory, as cultural resilience: City cultural resilience is the internal energy, the inner force (or vitality) that allows the city to react to external forces, adapt to them, and conserve its specific identity in the long run, in spite of turbulent transformation processes, and to design new win-win solutions. Cultural resilience stresses the notion of the cultural memory of the community as a formative strength of collective con- sciousness, foundation of continuity, engine of the future and new actions, in order to improve trust, cooperation and coordination of actions, and to promote a sense of community. […] Cultural resilience depends on the capacity to think and choose in a systematic, multidimensional, open and relational way, linking short-, medium- and long-term perspectives, with attention to the ‘memory’ of the system in achieving common interests. (p. 60)

The ‘cultural resilience’ of a city and its citizens will increasingly be intertwined with the rise of citizen-driven collaborations and activist and artistic actions that critique unsustainable norms and demonstrate differ- ent ways of living, thinking and acting (see, e.g., Camponeschi, 2013; Duxbury, 2013, 2014; Kirchberg & Kagan, 2013; Miles, 2013). Civic gov- ernance and infrastructure must be ready to enable these initiatives and to facilitate coalitions and systems of arrangements to sustain actions in the public interest. To embrace this broader view of cultural vitality and resilience, it must be linked to the typical objects of municipal cultural policy: and cultural activities, the organizations and infrastructure supporting them. Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 169

Developing Frameworks, Strategies and Infrastructure for Transformation

Recognizing that the aims, priorities and processes of development/ transformation differ significantly from locale to locale and among different groups, “the role played by governance in any long-term transition to sustain- able development is that of steering an interactive and reflexive process of debate and dialogue” (Jordan 2008: 25). Within the sustainable city, strategy is viewed as: the capacity to manage the growing complexity of the city as an evolving and dynamic system in constant flux, and solve conflicts with new capacity for synthesis, integrating multiple elements and components, generally considered separated and in conflict/contradiction, and identifying new connections, syner- gies and relational networks. (Girard, 2011: 61)

As a response to “the limits to rational steering” in governance for sustain- able development, policy design techniques such as transition management have emerged (Newig et al., 2007, p. 185). Transition management “com- bines an orientation toward a long-term vision of ‘sustainable development’ with short-term experimental learning to probe options and find pathways to realise the vision” (Voß et al., 2009, p. 277). This approach acknowledges that processes of social and ecological reproduction are “non-linear, inde- terminate, contextually specific, and attainable through multiple pathways” (nsfwus, 2000: 7). It also recognizes that goals within each domain of sus- tainability are contested; that knowledge of the complex dynamics among society, technology and nature is limited; and that power to shape change is distributed across many actors and systems (Newig et al., 2007). Relations are central in this context, and the governance imperative be- comes the development or improvement of relations among various systems to maximize benefits towards human sustainable development (Girard, 2011). City governance thus promotes cooperation and the capacity to coordinate ac- tions of multiple different actors, building a “neural network of connections” (p. 66) and giving to the city “an ‘intrinsic’ organizational capacity” (p. 58). Successful action is more than meeting specific goals; “it is also about creat- ing an enriched platform for further action” (Silver, 2013: 260). Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

170 ÀGORA

Foundations: Diverse Efforts to Include Culture in Sustainability

Internationally, local authorities have experimented in seeking approaches to incorporate culture into sustainability planning and governance practices. For example, in Canada a national initiative led numerous communities to develop Integrated Community Sustainability Plans (icsps) that invented ways to incorporate culture as the fourth pillar of sustainability. Based on par- ticipatory citizen-based planning efforts that included local cultural leaders (Jeannotte & Duxbury, 2012), the icsps tend to view local culture(s) as an as- pect of the community’s self-vision and goals – the essence of the community to be sustained as well as a strategic resource to help the community to achieve its broader civic goals. Such local efforts have been conducted in relative isolation from one another and the contours of these frameworks are just now emerging. The recent launch of an international awards programme by the City of Mexico and uclg to recognize cultural policies that have best contributed to sustainable development promises to make efforts of this type more visible and advance knowledge of effective strategies for cultural poli- cy-related initiatives in contexts of urban sustainability. The topic is also present in international political contexts through such initiatives as the United Cities and Local 2010 policy statement “Culture: Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”, The Hangzhou Decla- ration: “Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies” (unesco, 2013 b) and a series of international congresses, meetings and reports (e.g., un System Task Team, 2012). Among recent efforts to include culture as an explicit goal in the post-2015 international development agenda, the commitment of a consortium of international networks of governmental and non-governmental organizations and global cultural actors1 is notable (see ifacca et al., 2013). Collectively, these efforts are providing global visibility and leadership in addressing this issue. They are also creating places where diverse knowledge and case studies have been brought forward to demon-

1. The lead organizations are: International Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies, United Cities and Local Governments – Committee on Culture, Interna- tional Federation of Coalitions for Cultural Diversity, and Culture Action Europe. Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 171

strate the importance of integrating cultural considerations in sustainable de- velopment projects, policy and programmes. As mentioned previously, multifaceted conceptual currents are inform- ing these developments. Although research on the cultural dimension of sus- tainable development is lagging behind other sustainability-related research, the pace of scholarly attention to this issue is accelerating. Many research initiatives, policy/planning efforts and artistic projects are illuminating the complexity of the connections between culture and sustainability, articulating how culture is a driver and enabler of sustainable development and a foun- dation for transition to a truly sustainable society. Within this complex and dynamic knowledge milieu, culture is understood as ‘a way of life’ and also addressed through more narrow definitions focusing on culture-based expres- sions and ideas, activities and innovative approaches. The complexity of sto- rylines and approaches in the research literature indicates that thinking about cultural sustainability is transdisciplinary in nature and at an early conceptual stage (Soini & Birkeland, forthcoming). At this time, one can view the inclusion of culture in sustainability as a paradigm-change-in-process, still in the process of elaboration (Duxbury, Cullen & Pascual, 2012). A “cultural theory of sustainable urbanization” (Nada- rajah & Yamamoto, 2007: 11) has not yet developed, but there is a growing con- sensus that “understanding sustainability processes requires an understanding of cultures” (Meuleman, 2013: 49). Progress has been observed in many small steps – in municipal plans, citizen dialogues, reports and studies, artist and so- cial grassroots experiments, critiques of unsustainable practices and a widely shared conviction of the need to include cultural dimensions in sustainability policy, planning and development initiatives. As Pieterse (2011) remarks, “It will be in the messy efforts to implement alternatives that more robust theoreti- cal frames will crystallize and, in turn, spawn a more effective praxis” (p. 315).

Strategic Directions: Three Dimensions of Cultural Governance

Governance is concerned with policy processes – “the means by which policy objectives and approaches are identified, selected and implemented” Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

172 ÀGORA

(Gattinger, 2011: 4). Among multiple definitions, governance generally fo- cuses on “coordination within and between , business and societal actors to pursue shared or interdependent objectives when resources, power and information are widely distributed between them and no single actor can effectively pursue the objectives on their own” (p. 3). There is a rapidly grow- ing literature on governance of sustainability and an adequate review and synthesis of this research is beyond the scope of the current paper. However, based on policy/planning-linked research and practice-based innovations in- ternationally, a cultural governance framework for culture within the context of sustainable development could contain three main interrelated dimensions: 1. Culturally sensitive sustainability governance processes and struc- tures. 2. A cultural framework or lens on all public policies/decisions. 3. A sustainability approach to cultural policy/planning and governance.

Culturally Sensitive Sustainability Governance Processes and Structures

In Transgovernance: Advancing Sustainability Governance, Louis Meuleman (2013) observes that existing governance frameworks seem to deny the social complexity and uncertainty of our contemporary world and argues that “sustainability governance should be more culturally sensitive, reflexive and dynamic” (p. 37). The focus here is on process: Meuleman notes that culturally sensitive sustainability governance requires permanent and systematic attention to translate or adapt possible solutions into ones that work well in a given cultural setting. A “culturally sensitive metagov- ernance for sustainable development” requires “institutions, instruments, processes, and actor involvement based on compatibility of values and tra- ditions rather than on commonality or integration” (p. 37). A cultural as- sessment within a sustainability governance framework would ask: “What are key values linked to both the objectives of sustainability and of the problematique, and how can they be reconciled? Simply put, how can they be made compatible?” (p. 70). Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 173

Meuleman (2013: 69-70) suggests a series of governance principles that could be useful for the design of culturally sensitive institutions and trans- formation processes for sustainability: reflexivity, resilience, transparency, inclusiveness, problem-orientedness as a point of departure, temporality, lo- cality, potential for diversity, culturality, polycentricity and historicity.2 Along these lines, unesco has designed a cultural diversity lens “to create awareness of cultural dimensions in development programmes (including development projects, policies and strategies)” (unesco 2013 a: no page).

A Cultural Framework or Lens on All Public Policies/Decisions

Although related, a distinction is made here between a cultural sensitivity to facilitate compatibility and acceptance of externally devised programmes (above) and a more endogenous review process to ensure internally defined development proceeds in harmony with local cultural contexts and priorities (this section). The idea of a cultural lens on all public policies and plans is rooted in practices developed in regards to potential impacts on aboriginal cultures. In New Zealand, for example, Cultural Impact Assessments (cia) are prepared as technical reports, similar to other technical reports such as ecological or hydrological assessments, documenting “Māori cultural values, interests and associations with an area or a resource, and the potential im- pacts of a proposed activity on these” (Quality Planning, 2012: 2). It is also a tool to “facilitate meaningful and effective participation of Māori in impact assessment” (p. 2). A variation of a Cultural Impact Assessment is a Cultural Values Report (cvr) to “identify and describe values pertaining to an area or resource” (p. 2). cvr may address “broad level impacts of development occurring or anticipated” in an area and “provide direction as to the relevant issues and how these should best be addressed” rather than describing effects relating to a specific activity (p. 2). Although these reports are not required by statute, an assessment of impacts on cultural values and interests assists both developers and local authorities to meet a variety of statutory obligations (Quality Planning, 2012).

2. Further elaboration of these principles, while beyond the scope of this article, would be a valuable contribution to advancing this objective. Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

174 ÀGORA

The idea of expanding such cultural assessments to all community de- velopment actions and policy has been discussed for over a decade. In The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning, Jon Hawkes (2001) argued that government must develop a framework that evaluates the cultural impacts of all environmental, economic and social de- cisions and plans being implemented in cities and communities. This cultural lens goes beyond a focus on professional arts production to incorporate a broader view of culture: “the social production of meaning” or “making sense together”– a focus on process rather than product (Hawkes, 2013: 2). Elaborat- ing, he explains: “The way a society governs itself cannot be fully democratic without there being clear avenues for the expression of community values, and unless these expressions directly affect the directions society takes. These processes are culture at work” (p. 2). In order for public planning to be more effective, he argues, its methodology should include “an integrated frame- work of cultural evaluation along similar lines to those being developed for social, environmental and economic impact assessment” (p. 2). Hawkes (2013: 2-3) proposes four elements of a mandatory cultural framework to be applied to all public planning: • Active participation – What has been the quality of community input into the development of the actual and proposed activities under re- view? • Diverse authenticity – To what extent are these activities reflective of the values and ways of life of the communities upon which they (will) impact? • Continuing engagement – Do these activities improve the capacity of communities to act and interact? • Resonance with ‘universal’ values –Are human rights respected, in- cluding cultural rights?

Additional examples: ifacca (2013) advocate that development-related policy frameworks and action plans “should provide a common ‘Cultural Impact Assessment’ mechanism to be used in urbanization processes and aim at improving the cultural quality of public spaces” (p. 9). Similarly, in Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 175

the context of rapid urban development in South Korea, Choi and Ahn (2013) argue that planning and development processes need to give value to the “soft tissues” within the built environment, defined as “the sustenance and evolution of local resources and values rooted in culture and history” and “an integrated understanding of … perceptions of the cultural and social con- texts” (p. 55). Including a cultural lens in all urban development decisions and processes is still a challenge. Research on the Canadian icsp development process sug- gests the inclusion of culture within city planning is gradually advancing, but integration of cultural considerations within a holistic sustainability planning paradigm has not yet been achieved (Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2012). Beginning steps can be seen in the inclusion of cultural considerations in local sustaina- bility policies, plans and related documents. The initial report from the 2013 World Cities Culture Forum, a snapshot of the general state of urban cultural policy in the world’s major cities, admits that culture is not yet a cornerstone of city development and the integration of culture within broader city development processes and policy areas is still considered an emerging practice. On one hand, the report advises cultural professionals to “come out of their own sectors and departments and be pre- pared to engage across city government” and collaborate, allowing for a mul- tiplicity of competing priorities (p. 5). On the other hand, resistance is also experienced in the broader sphere of urban planning, often characterized by entrenched interests and resistance to rethinking sustainability to incorpo- rate concerns of cultural development (Duxbury, Cullen & Pascual, 2012). Altogether, silo-policy thinking and operational challenges in practice tend to block the development of a ‘cultural lens’ on all city policies and develop- ment decisions.

A Sustainability Approach to Cultural Policy/Planning and Governance

Informed by research literature on sustainability governance and ongoing analysis of a variety of culture-based case studies internationally, this sec- tion envisions some broad contours for thinking about and building cultural governance systems in the context of sustainable urban development. It rep- Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

176 ÀGORA

resents research in process and aims to outline some ideas about the elements and dynamics that might be incorporated, but is not meant to be a compre- hensive profile. Future work will compare leading urban cultural governance models with evolving thinking about sustainability governance. Overall, a sustainability approach to cultural governance embraces a collab- orative approach to how cultural policy/governance is directed and functions and incorporates an iterative planning process like the transition management approach described earlier. Cultural governance is based on a systems view of culture, knowledgeable about how various cultural elements operate and are sustained locally, favours organic growth over large-scale developer-led projects and incorporates a long-term perspective. In a context of openness, the system aims to highlight and privilege local cultural values, knowledge and distinctiveness in order to address goals such as enriching and valour- izing public spaces, making them platforms for social and cultural actions and for environmental awareness, and reflecting local cultures in their design. All efforts support “the possibility of diversity, difference and local contin- gency rather than the imposition of global homogeneity” (nsfwus, 2000: 7) and consider global urban development trends through this local lens. Cultural governance systems in a sustainability context aim to nurture cross-sector relationships and build “enriched platforms” for dialogue and action (Silver, 2013). The centrality of relations in this context implies a gov- ernance imperative to bridge different sectors, transcend conventional dual- isms (nsfwus, 2000) and activate common goals as points for cooperation, coordination of actions and partnerships. Activities and strategies aim to pro- vide diverse (democratized) artistic programming for all citizens, to build bridges among people and to diminish inequities and social divides, prioritizing engagement with “hard-to-reach communities” (wccf, 2013: 4). Governance systems are open to emerging practices of citizen-driven collaborations and alternatives and to new priorities, informed by both economic and ‘softer’ aesthetic and ethical values, and linked to broader civic agendas (e.g., youth engagement). Planning processes embrace genuine community engagement processes and local authorities commit to work with cultural agents from the outset of planning processes, not as an afterthought, and not ‘dictated to’ (wccf, 2013). Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 177

Approaches are sensitive to multifaceted, localized contexts and the diver- sity of pathways that may be taken to integrate cultural considerations with- in public measures relating to local sustainability. Attention to scale allows for neighbourhood or community-scale decentralization as well as urban sys- tem network-level infrastructure, as most appropriate (Pieterse, 2011). Gov- ernance systems foster flexible and ongoing processes nsfwus( , 2000) and develop in situ, emergent systems of arrangements and strategies (vs. tight plans) in which an array of policy/planning approaches and mechanisms may be employed to support artistic/cultural activities as a driver and enabler of practices toward sustainable development. Interlinking these local cultural governance systems, an internation- al knowledge meta-system supports and informs local action (i.e., filtered through local concerns, priorities and conditions), shares learning and experi- ences and collectively evolves thinking and practice/praxis.

Closing Reflections

When the avenues for culture within urban sustainability are not evident or not recognized within a governance system, culture tends to be sidelined in pol- icy and planning contexts (Duxbury & Jeannotte, 2012). In order to advance the inclusion of culture within urban sustainability frameworks, collective action is necessary to build on conceptual and experimental practice-based foundations and put forward principles and operational strategies for cultural governance systems that would be sympathetic and coherent within evolving thinking about strategies for more sustainable cities and communities. From this perspective, this paper aimed to envision and sketch out the contours of what a system of cultural governance might look like within a sustainable city context. Three key dimensions were proposed: culturally sensitive sustainability governance processes and structures, a cultural lens on all public policies/decisions and a sustainability approach to cultural policy/planning and governance. The continued general lack of integration of culture in wider urban plan- ning and development, as highlighted by the World Cities Culture Forum 2013 report, stands as a reminder of the sizable challenge of this goal. Yet the nu- merous actions, policies, programmes and experimental initiatives underway Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

178 ÀGORA

in communities of all sizes may collectively evolve a new way of perceiving connections and roles for cultural approaches and activity in transforming our cities into more sustainable living environments. Informed by a burgeoning transdisciplinary research literature examining the complex linkages between culture and sustainability, the continued elaboration of these practices will, over time, contribute to the development of more culturally and context-sen- sitive policies for sustainable development. To systematize these approaches and innovate a renewed approach to cul- tural governance in the context of urban sustainability, the six stages of social innovation (Murray, Caulier-Grice & Mulligan, 2010) are useful to consider: 1. Diagnosis – highlighting emerging problems. 2. Fostering creative methods to generate ideas and proposals. 3. Designing prototypes and implementing pilot experiments enabling ideas to be tested. 4. Achieving sustainability in the long term, making practice part of the routine. 5. Disseminating and generalizing large-scale innovation. 6. Causing systematic change.

At this point in time, the inclusion of culture in the planning and building of more sustainable cities tends to exist within the first three stages. The chal- lenge now is to climb the remaining stages, a process to be advanced locally through innovations in city planning/development systems, creative cooper- ative arrangements and local experiments, and globally through trans-local knowledge sharing, analysis and co-learning.

References

Blandy, D. and J. Fenn (2012): «Sustainability: Sustaining Cities and Com- munity Cultural Development», Studies in Art Education, 53(4): pp. 270-282. Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 179

Camponeschi, C. (2013): Enabling City: Enhancing Creative Community Resilience, Vol. 2. Retrieved Nov. 23, 2013, from www.enabling- city.com.

Choi, H. S. and K. H. Ahn (2013): «Assessing the Sustenance and Evolution of Social and Cultural Contexts within Sustainable Urban Develop- ment, Using as a Case the mac in South Korea», Sustainable Cities and Society, 6: 51-56.

Duxbury, N. (ed.) (2013): Animation of Public Space through the Arts: To- ward more Sustainable Communities, Almedina, Coimbra.

Duxbury, N. (2014): «Culture and Sustainability: How New Ways of Col- laboration Allow Us to Re-think our Cities [English] / Cultura y sostenibilidad: Cómo las nuevas formas de colaboración permiten replantearnos nuestras ciudades [Spanish]», Observatorio Cultural (Cultural Observatory), National Council for Culture and the Arts of Chile, Santiago.

Duxbury, N.; C. Cullen and J. Pascual (2012): Cities, Culture and Sustain- able Development. In Anheier, H. K.; Y. R. Isar and M. Hoels­ cher (eds.): Cultural Policy and Governance in a New Metropoli- tan Age (pp. 73-86), The Cultures and Globalization Series, Vol. 5. Sage, London.

Duxbury, N. and M. S. Jeannotte (2011): «Introduction: Culture and sus- tainable communities», Culture and Local Governance, 3(1-2): 1-10. Special issue on «Culture and Sustainable Communities». — (2012): «Including Culture in Sustainability: An Assessment of Canada’s Integrated Community Sustainability Plans», International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 4(1): 1-19.

Gattinger, M. (2011): «Democratization of Culture, Cultural Democracy and Governance». Paper presented at the Canadian Public Arts Funders Annual General Meeting, 16-18 November 2011, White- horse, Yukon. [2/2/2014].

Girard, L. F. (2011): «Creativity and the Human Sustainable City: Principles and Approaches for Nurturing City Resilience». In Girard, L. F.; T. Baycan and P. Nijkamp (eds.): Sustainable City and Creativity: Promoting Creative Urban Initiatives, pp. 55-96, Ashgate, London.

Hawkes, J. (2001): The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning, Common Ground, Melbourne.

Hawkes, J. (2013): «Shaping policies: Culture-sensitive and context-based policies in sustainable development». Address at the Hangzhou In- Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

180 ÀGORA

ternational Congress, «Culture: Key to Sustainable Development», 15-17 May 2013, Hangzhou, .

Hicks, L. E. and R. King (2007): «Guest Editorial: Confronting Environ- mental Collapse: Visual Culture, Art Education, and Environmental Responsibility», Studies in Art Education, 48(4): 332-335.

International Federation of Arts Councils and Cultural Agencies (if­ acca); United Cites and Local Governments – Committee on Culture, International Federation of Coalitions for Cultur­ al Diversity and Cultural Action Europe (2013): Culture as a Goal in the Post-2015 Development Agenda. [30/11/2013].

International Social Science Council (issc) (2013): World Social Science Report: Changing Global Environments. Paris: issc, unesco & oecd. [30/11/2013].

Jeannotte, M. S. and N. Duxbury (2012): «Culture and Sustainability: Ex- perts and Amateurs in the Development of Integrated Communi- ty Sustainability Plans», Canadian Journal of Media Studies, Fall, 141-175. Special issue on «Experts and amateurs in communication and culture». [3/1/2014].

Jordan, A. (2008): «The Governance of Sustainable Development: Taking Stock and Looking Forwards», Environment and Planning C: Gov- ernment and Policy, 26(1): 17-33.

Kirchberg, V. and S. Kagan (eds.) (2013): City, Culture and Society, 4(3). Special issue on «The Sustainable City and the Arts».

Meuleman, L. (2013): «Cultural Diversity and Sustainability Metagovern- ance». In L. Meuleman (ed.): Transgovernance: Advancing sus- tainability governance. Springer.

Miles, M. (2013): «A Post-Creative City?», rccs Annual Review, no. 5, 123-139. [30/11/2013].

Murray, R.; J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulligan (2010): The Open Book of Social Innovation, The Young Foundation & the lab – nesta, London.

Nadarajah, M. and A. T. Yamamoto (eds.) (2007): Urban crisis: Culture and the Sustainability of Cities, United Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Newig, J.; J.-P. Voss and J. Monstadt (2007): Editorial: «Governance for Sustainable Development in the Face of Ambivalence, Uncertainty Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6035/Kult-ur.2014.1.1.7 - issn: 2386-5458 - vol. 1, nº1, 2014 - pp. 165-182

ÀGORA 181

and Distributed Power: An Introduction», Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3): 185-192.

National Science Foundation Workshop on Urban Sustainability (ns­ fwus) (2000): Towards a Comprehensive Geographical Perspec- tive on Urban Sustainability. Final report of the 1998: National Science Foundation Workshop on Urban Sustainability. Rutgers University.

Pieterse, E. (2011): «Recasting Urban Sustainability in the South», Devel- opment, 54(3): 309-316.

Quality Planning (2012): Consent Support Guidance Note: faq’s about Cultural Impact Assessments. The rma Quality Planning Resource, managed by New Zealand Planning Institute. [3/1/2014].

Sandercock, L. (2003): Cosmopolis II: Mongrel Cities in the 21st Century, Continuum, London.

Shaharir, b. M. Z. (2012): A New Paradigm of Sustainability. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(1): 91-99.

Silver, D. (2013): «Local Politics in the Creative City: The Case of Toronto». In C. Grodach & D. Silver (eds.): The politics of urban cultural policy: Global perspectives, pp. 249-265, Routledge, Oxon, uk.

Soini, K. and I. Birkeland (forthcoming): Exploring the Scientific Discourse on Cultural Sustainability. Geoforum.

Unesco [2013 a]: The cultural diversity lens. [3/1/2014].

Unesco (2013 b): The Hangzhou Declaration: Placing Culture at the Heart of Sustainable Development Policies, unesco, Adopted in Hang- zhou, People’s Republic of China, May 17, 2013, Paris.

Un System Task Team on the Post-2015 Un Development Agenda (2012): Culture: A Driver and an Enabler of Sustainable Development, un­ esco, Paris. [3/1/2014].

United Cities and Local Governments (uclg) (2010): Culture: Fourth pil- lar of sustainable development. Policy Statement approved by the uclg Executive Bureau, Mexico City, Nov. 17, 2010.

Voss, J. P.; A. Smith and J. Grin (2009): «Designing Long-Term Policy: Rethinking Transition Management», Policy Sciences, 42(4): pp. 275-302. Nancy Duxbury Cultural Governance in Sustainable Cities

182 ÀGORA

World Cities Culture Forum (wccf) (2013): The New Cultural Agenda: Beyond Boosterism. Policy Briefing 1: Istanbul Summit 2013, bop Consulting & Mayor of London, London.